Policy —

Italy preparing to hold YouTube, others liable for uploads

Italy demands that sites like YouTube start acting like traditional …

User-generated content sites have always resisted the idea that they should be regulated like traditional broadcasters, but Italy has been the democracy that has gone furthest in that direction. The move toward regulation continues with a new policy that could force sites like YouTube to obtain TV licenses from the Italian government. Such sites could also be fully liable for copyright infringement and libelous or illegal material posted by users.

The Italian government has already gone after Google in a highly public fashion, suing several top executives over a YouTube video that showed classmates abusing a student with Down's Syndrome. In that case, the argument was that Google had a duty to screen such material and keep it from appearing on the site—a claim that Google and others have always said would make user-generated content sites almost impossible to run.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Italian government now plans to take this principle much further. Sites that allow video uploads would be responsible both for copyrighted content posted by users and for libelous material in uploaded videos. Such sites would also need government licenses to operate, potentially giving the government more power over their operations.

Such an approach eliminates most of the "safe harbor" rules that protect UGC sites in places like the US. Even in Europe, the EU passed an electronic commerce directive providing for many of the same principles: companies that cache or host user information, and companies that serve as a "mere conduit," have broad immunity from prosecution over user-generated material.

The directive is clear that hosting services are "not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service" (with a few exceptions) and that EU members shall not force them to "monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor [adopt] a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity."

It's unclear how Italy's action fits with this EU policy, but the government insists that the new rules are meant to bring Italy into compliance with a separate EU directive on video content.

Such moves always raise concern in Italy that the motivations may not be pure. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is one of the country's biggest media barons, and his properties are directly affected by infringement on sites like YouTube.

As PBS show Wide Anglepointed out way back in 2003, "It is difficult to overstate the influence Berlusconi has on everyday Italian life. Besides running the country, he also enjoys direct and indirect control over 90 percent of national television, he has built up Italy's biggest publishing house, controls its biggest film distribution network, and has major interests in the financial services and real estate sectors."

Berlusconi has also shown himself willing to use the courts to go after media critics; he famously sued The Economist for defamation over a lead story called "Why Silvio Berlusconi is unfit to lead Italy" (and lost). Whether intended or not, a move to hold sites (rather than individuals) responsible for uploaded comments could well have the effect of chilling political speech and could lead companies to block or remove provocative statements that might displease the authorities.

Silvio Berlusconi needs to retire. He is becoming an embarrassment for Italy. User Generated content should only open for liability for the poster not the host. Just like blog host should not be libel for blog posts just the person posting it

In this case, I hope Google does not withdraw. It sets a poor trend of running away with your tail inbetween your legs. Let the case go to court, and let Google win the debate. Italy is no China, they are democratic.

Wow, and I thought corporate influence was overly powerful in America. But now Italy takes the prize.

Why not also make the power companies libel? After all, that copyright infringing video couldn't be delivered without all them electrons. Oh, and the Janitor sweeping the floors at night. The company would surely not function without his services. Obviously he's to blame as well. All these people played a roll in distributing the infringing content. Sue the pants off them too!

Originally posted by BuckG:In this case, I hope Google does not withdraw. It sets a poor trend of running away with your tail inbetween your legs. Let the case go to court, and let Google win the debate. Italy is no China, they are democratic.

Use the system.

I don't think anybody expects Google to walk before the case plays out in court. But if it does and the courts rule against Google and the EU doesn't intervene, walking away is not cowardly, it's a statement of ethics.

I don't think anybody expects Google to walk before the case plays out in court. But if it does and the courts rule against Google and the EU doesn't intervene, walking away is not cowardly, it's a statement of ethics.

++

if Italy wants google to censor youtube, then just block youtube from italy. if they want to cry they don't get to use the service. makes sense to me.

I hope they DO say "Piss Off!!" and pull out of Italy, but not just with YouTube, but with all of their products. While they are at it they could pull out of France as well. And not just Google, but MS as well, and all the other companies that have been the targets of a constant barrage of stupidity over the past few years. Then let the EU as a whole do whatever they want with Italy and company, smack them around, fine them, whatever.

Also, when they pull out, they should do it about half way through an election year. Then when a bunch of ass-hat politicians suddenly find themselves out of a job because the general populace wants their fix of web crack, The people who replace them will most likely come asking them to return, and they can dictate some common sense into the situation.

"Such moves always raise concern in Italy that the motivations may not be pure. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is one of the country's biggest media barons, and his properties are directly affected by infringement on sites like YouTube."

Oh yes, conflict of interest.

"As PBS show Wide Angle pointed out way back in 2003, "It is difficult to overstate the influence Berlusconi has on everyday Italian life. Besides running the country, he also enjoys direct and indirect control over 90 percent of national television, he has built up Italy's biggest publishing house, controls its biggest film distribution network, and has major interests in the financial services and real estate sectors.""

So, basically, he's almost like a one-man government; with a stretch - a dictator?

Why waste resources spying on your citizens when you can have corporations do it for you? It's like a police state where secret police get everyone to inform on each other. Nice. Berlusconi is turning into Vladimir Putin.

This shouldn't be surprising. The Chinese have abandoned Maoist Communism, replacing it with a Mussolini-style corporatist, authoritarian one-party state. Berlusconi is rebuilding the old authoritarian Italian model and has neo-fascist parties in his coalition.

China has a billion people, so companies might be motivated to kowtow to them to get access to such a huge market. But cutting off Italy is no big deal. If Italy wants to impose authoritarian control of all video on the Internet, video sites should just cut off Italy. They can get back in when they give up their censorship.

Sure, next we'll hold Wikis liable for distributing false information. Operators of forums on their site liable for libel, slander, and verbal threats from forum posters. Facebook and Flicker and MySpace liable for hosting copy protected works published by their subscribers.

The is no such thing as an automated system to do this. This would require massive investments in real people to troll personal information on sites, and monitor every change that includes an upload, or a link to an unlicensed resource.

This is insane. If it's their own content, yea, make them liable. For user submitted content, no, hell no.

Simply make the USER liable, and put in place a streamlined process for the government to identify people based on a simple process: 1) provide proof of ownership of the copy written material. 2) provide a screen shot of the user account that published it. 3) file a simple notice with the court, which will review and confirm the copy protected work is in fact on that user's page or in a comment posted by them on a site, and legally document the incident. 4) send the site web master the copy of the government form requesting the ID of the user, and have the site lock the user account and/or simply remove the infringing content. 5) send the user a nice big, but reasonable fine. 6) file a warrant for arrest of a user who does not pay the fine (no different that a parking ticket).

Don't make the content owners sue, and waste lots of legal and court time. Just put in place a streamlined process so that the government can do this on their own. Find your stuff coped online? tell the police, a few days later someone confirms it, sends a notice, an user is identified, and someone pays a fine and the content is removed. If the user managed to get an account WITHOUT being verifiable (false names, anonymous e-mail, etc) and can't be found, the account is blocked and the site pays the small fine instead (for failing to ID an issued user account).

Screw em, all Italy is good for these days is food, tourism and ancient and dead cultures. Hardly a loss of economic potential to cut them off, they benefit more from progression of technology then we would from the market if you have to jump through all the hoops to mitigate legal risk, if they want to stick to draconian thinking, let them, its their loss and they'll just be left behind. Either they fix their own system, but I wouldn't kowtow to that crap and lack of personal responsibility on part of the content creator/uploader.

Originally posted by BuckG:In this case, I hope Google does not withdraw. It sets a poor trend of running away with your tail inbetween your legs. Let the case go to court, and let Google win the debate. Italy is no China, they are democratic.

Use the system.

I don't think anybody expects Google to walk before the case plays out in court. But if it does and the courts rule against Google and the EU doesn't intervene, walking away is not cowardly, it's a statement of ethics.

Originally posted by David Bradbury:Does Italy have jurisdiction over a US company?

INAL

I think it depends if they have any real physical presense there. If no, they could just let Italy pass it's law to probably no effect, accrue fines, and see Italy try to attempt to collect through the courts of another nation which can be troublesome to do, particularily if they must come to the United States and Youtube is able to mount a First Amendment defense.

"Cut off Italy" seems like an over-the-top, knee-jerk reaction. But, upon thinking about it, what else could a company like YouTube or Google really do? Stay in Italy for a few more years, risking court cases and the costs associated with a high-profile case, and hope that the government stance takes a 180 before they bankrupt you?

I have to admit, I don't see what Italy hopes to gain from this. Other than driving out these companies, I mean.

I've been trying to think of a physical-world analogy (that doesn't involve cars) and settled on the following:

Picture the scene: a landlord rents out a flat to some people who then invite lots of other people round to watch pirated movies. Italy's stance is to hold the landlord responsible for the copyright infringement.

How is that not crazy? (or is the analogy crap..?)

Or, if it is YouTube's responsibility to actively police their users from infringing copyright, then it must also be the Italian government's responsibility to actively police their citizens to prevent the same. Ergo, if Italians are infringing copyright, it is the fault of the government for not policing them adequately.

I think Youtube is liable because they moderate content, if someone tells them that something is copyrighted they take action.

The Swedish courts agree with me in that the Pirate Bay is not liable because they don't moderate content, if you upload child porn, an extreme example, they won't touch it because they're then moderating (I have unfortunatly seen child porn in their top 100 downloads list, I didn't actively search for it).

Originally posted by BuckG:In this case, I hope Google does not withdraw. It sets a poor trend of running away with your tail inbetween your legs. Let the case go to court, and let Google win the debate. Italy is no China, they are democratic.

Use the system.

I don't think anybody expects Google to walk before the case plays out in court. But if it does and the courts rule against Google and the EU doesn't intervene, walking away is not cowardly, it's a statement of ethics.

Originally posted by David Bradbury: Does Italy have jurisdiction over a US company?

INAL

I think it depends if they have any real physical presense there. If no, they could just let Italy pass it's law to probably no effect, accrue fines, and see Italy try to attempt to collect through the courts of another nation which can be troublesome to do, particularily if they must come to the United States and Youtube is able to mount a First Amendment defense.

[/quote]

IANAL either. But my understanding is basically matches yours, where only if a company does business in a country, sells products into a country, has an office/employees, etc. can that countries laws generally be applied and have any teeth. One reason many companies have subsidiary companies in different countries is that company is also used to isolates the liability of the parent company to the laws in that country. Yes, they could probably try to fine Google, and if Google has any advertising from Italian sources, or an Italian office, that would likely be fair game. But probably little else, if Google is willing to walk away. And the Google employee's don't visit Italy.

Since Google would not have broken any US laws, it should be pretty much a no-go at collecting anything through the US courts, as long as Google did not overlook routine legal work, to get the claims thrown out for jurisdiction issues. So if Google just walked away from Italy, they would not be able to enforce much of anything.

Certainly, pulling YouTube out of Italy would not matter much to Google. They would likely fight it on principle, but if they lost, Italy could not shut down YouTube anywhere but Italy. And without a "Great Wall of Italy" to filter it out, all sorts of proxies could be used to indirectly source YouTube anyway. It would just be a little harder to get there.

However, Google/YouTube's defense would not be First Amendment related. This is all about copyright, so in the US it would boil down to DCMA safe harbor defense. But even that defense doesn't mean people can't try...

But Italy could put a world of hurt on any home-grown YouTube look alike, and that my be a big part of what Berlusconi wants out of this. Crush any local competition to his media companies.

Safe harbor doesn't make sense with the Internet. Safe harbor makes sense with mail, since it would otherwise require the opening of every letter and package. Google can take pictures of every street, so surely it can hire some folks to look over every upload. That's the kind of thing you can do in one of those countries where folks work for about $100-$200 per month.

Newspapers and TV are both held responsible for the content that they issue. Why shouldn't YouTube be held to the same standards?